Chelsea have 35 players out on loan....

[Sidney1st]

An insight into Chelsea and the players they loan out.

Chelsea have 35 players out on loan, but they can make a fair amount of money from fees and eventually selling the players like Bamford and in the past Cork.
That's not a bad system, but it's probably bad for other, smaller clubs who're also trying to get kids for their youth systems.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... anees.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CnBtruntru]

And they are whingeing about the Chinese and all the money they have

[Dyched]

It's hasn't worked out to badly for us over the years. Keano, Mee, Trippier, Cork, Cahill. Lots of clubs have taken decent players who aren't good enough to stay at the big clubs. Its hard to judge if they'd have been better off or worse developing at smaller clubs.

[minnieclaret]

Ludicrous. Them players should be learning the game at other clubs but not as loanees.

[claretspice]

I don't know if they make a profit once the wages of these players are taken into account (they don't offset all wages whilst on loan), but it works for them because at the very least, these players aren't developing to the benefit of their rivals.

It should be banned as a practice. Its ant-competitive as much as anything.

[KRBFC]

Nothing wrong with it at all, loans aid development more than playing development team football.

[Darthlaw]

If they were taking the vast majority of players from the lower leagues and robbing the grass roots of potential money I'd probably give more of a stuff. As it is, the vast majority are foreign youngsters cherry picked from other academies so they can do what they like.

[IAmAClaret]

Nothing wrong with it at all, loans aid development more than playing development team football.

So does playing regularly on a permanent basis, which is what would happen if Chelsea (and others) weren't able to 'stockpile' players in the hope 1/2 come good.

[Woodleyclaret]

Most of them are probably as bad as Chalobah and Bamford were. Championship standard on a good day.But as ex Chelsea these loanees carry a very high price tag not always linked to their actual ability.Bamford being a case in point .Three Premership loan spells and he flopped at all yet still cost Boro £5.5m

[Dyched]

The players will get more chances because their parent club is Chelsea. If all those players were contracted to a smaller club I doubt other clubs would be willing to take them on loan.

[KRBFC]

Most of them are probably as bad as Chalobah and Bamford were. Championship standard on a good day.But as ex Chelsea these loanees carry a very high price tag not always linked to their actual ability.Bamford being a case in point .Three Premership loan spells and he flopped at all yet still cost Boro £5.5m

I don't know how a player can possibly be a ''flop'' without being given a chance to show what he can do.
Bamford has shown what he can do in the Championship (Championship Player of the year) now its time for him to show what he can do in the PL.
Chalobah has looked good for Chelsea, Conte seems to like him so he can't be Championship standard on a good day.

[boatshed bill]

Nothing wrong with it at all, loans aid development more than playing development team football.

Only because loans exist. If they did not, these players would have other clubs for whom they would be playing regular football.